Novels are an obsolete technology

nyarlothothep

I've read a lot of books and I've gradually come to the conclusion a few weeks ago that novels are an archaic, outmoded entertainment technology. They're only useful for people to create worlds when they cant make films, whether through lack of talent/interest or finances. Otherwise anything a book can do a film can do better. Think about it, the internal monologues that ramble on for pages can be summated in the expression or glance of an actor. The lengthy, prosaic descriptions that go on and on forever can be conveyed in one beautifully framed shot, which will make an infinitely more indelible impresson on the mind as a striking image rather than the assembled idea of one. Example Game of Thrones, meandering, lengthy novels. Game of Thrones the tv show does everything that the books do but better.

Also the lack of technological or cinematic limitations ie what looks or sounds good, gives writers far too much leeway for the absurd, when they want to appear as serious. Eg Fight Club, Jack saying to Marla in front of the support group on the roof of some building (it's been 9 years since I read it so I might be wrong on the location), 'I kinda like you too.' and then her saying 'I kinda like you too' while the support group goes awww. Pass the bucket please plus it's ridiculous. Or American Psycho which just turns into a sordid little grief tale with the monotonous descriptions of torture. In the film they took the essence of the novel and dumped its excessive indulgences, thereby improving it. Or take for example Stephen King, his tales are excessively long winded, meandering and ultimately silly. If I was filming the Dark Tower there would be about 6000 pages worth that I would cut because it's ridiculous. Stephen King appearing in his own book would be the first thing to go. So authors in having too much freedom often write crap. The production of Back to the Future entailed financial limitations which prevented them from building the set for a nuclear power station that would act as the time machine. Instead they came up with the Delorean and movie history was made. Necessity is the mother of invention. Films/tv and games have replaced the novel as the primary means of fictional entertainment. Novels are a chore to read, an ineffecient use of time (they take long to assimilate compared to films/tv), aren't as affective and are ultimately boring. People should be encouraged not to read. Novels are obsolete, print is dead, long live motion pictures!

humbert

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I've read a lot of books and I've gradually come to the conclusion a few weeks ago that novels are an archaic, outmoded entertainment technology. They're only useful for people to create worlds when they cant make films, whether through lack of talent/interest or finances. Otherwise anything a book can do a film can do better. Think about it, the internal monologues that ramble on for pages can be summated in the expression or glance of an actor. The lengthy, prosaic descriptions that go on and on forever can be conveyed in one beautifully framed shot, which will make an infinitely more indelible impresson on the mind as a striking image rather than the assembled idea of one. Example Game of Thrones, meandering, lengthy novels. Game of Thrones the tv show does everything that the books do but better.

Also the lack of technological or cinematic limitations ie what looks or sounds good, gives writers far too much leeway for the absurd, when they want to appear as serious. Eg Fight Club, Jack saying to Marla in front of the support group on the roof of some building (it's been 9 years since I read it so I might be wrong on the location), 'I kinda like you too.' and then her saying 'I kinda like you too' while the support group goes awww. Pass the bucket please plus it's ridiculous. Or American Psycho which just turns into a sordid little grief tale with the monotonous descriptions of torture. In the film they took the essence of the novel and dumped its excessive indulgences, thereby improving it. Or take for example Stephen King, his tales are excessively long winded, meandering and ultimately silly. If I was filming the Dark Tower there would be about 6000 pages worth that I would cut because it's ridiculous. Stephen King appearing in his own book would be the first thing to go. So authors in having too much freedom often write crap. The production of Back to the Future entailed financial limitations which prevented them from building the set for a nuclear power station that would act as the time machine. Instead they came up with the Delorean and movie history was made. Necessity is the mother of invention. Films/tv and games have replaced the novel as the primary means of fictional entertainment. Novels are a chore to read, an ineffecient use of time (they take long to assimilate compared to films/tv), aren't as affective and are ultimately boring. People should be encouraged not to read. Novels are obsolete, print is dead, long live motion pictures!

Hehehe.

bumper234

Give me a good book over the idiot box any day.

nyarlothothep

I love humans, they're so predictable, instead of engaging with my post the archetypal human emulates his chimpanzee ancestors by flinging, metaphorically speaking, his own faeces at those he disagrees with, rather than, oh, I don't know, engaging in thoughtful and reasoned debate. Lol at you humans, you crack me up!

bumper234

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I love humans, they're so predictable, instead of engaging with my post the archetypal human emulates his chimpanzee ancestors by flinging, metaphorically speaking, his own faeces at those he disagrees with, rather than, oh, I don't know, engaging in thoughtful and reasoned debate. Lol at you humans, you crack me up!

Thank you Mr Elephant.

hardCopy

The Song Of Ice and Fire books are much more enjoyable than the TV show in my opinion and I'd consider myself an occasional, casual reader. Everything is totally condensed in the TV show and doesn't capture the scale of Westeros the way that the books do. To really explore the world the way the books do would be way over budget for any tv production.

I don't think either medium is superior to the other, it depends entirely on the story.

nyarlothothep

bumper234 wrote: »

Thank you Mr Elephant.

Ok Mr. Monkey. I like Elephants. This could be like a discussion on the novel as a technology among different types of animals like an Aesop fable.

wilkie2006

Is this a troll post? Come on, why else would you post something like this in a literature forum?

desertcircus

OP has not read and watched Hitch Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy, so opinion can safely be disregarded.

jimmycrackcorm

Novels aren't any type of technology. Every book version have read is far better than the movie in kind.

nyarlothothep

hardCopy wrote: »

The Song Of Ice and Fire books are much more enjoyable than the TV show in my opinion and I'd consider myself an occasional, casual reader. Everything is totally condensed in the TV show and doesn't capture the scale of Westeros the way that the books do. To really explore the world the way the books do would be way over budget for any tv production.

I don't think either medium is superior to the other, it depends entirely on the story.

I didn't get any scale from reading the books, just disparate locations which I think are reflected in the films. In the Dark Tower Stephen King gives no sense of the epic grandeur in his world, it's just summed up as thousands of miles of desert. I don't think any of these writers are as good as they're made out to be. One of the biggest letdowns ever was The Stand, the only two characters that were actually good, that I actually sympathised with in comparison to the goody two shoes types were Harold and Nadine (if I remember correctly) and they get killed off! Also Stu Redman's rescue by a dog was utterly stupid. Also what is it with writers using crude language. Example, Tom, I think he was the handicapped dude, uses the word "pr1ck" for "dick" when describing intercourse, I remember that sentence just being really off, especially in relation to his character (even if they were accessing his subconscious it wouldn't necessarily be radically different from his conscious persona if he had internalised his religiosity (I remember him being a pious Christian). Also, George Martin uses the word kunt in relation to a prostitute when writing Tyrion's inner monologue concerning the brothel. I just thought it was juvenile and stupid, trying to be gritty but ultimately just sounding street thuggish and Tyrion is certainly not a street thug. It seems to be a trend in writing to descend to street language and often when it's not needed.

I actually can't think of a novel that I've thought, all the way through this the quality was gold. The format doesn't allow it. TV actually encounters a similar problem though perhaps to a lesser extent. A novel is, on average, 200-400 pages, written by one dude or chick, quality control becomes an impossible task. In a song, you've got a much more limited time span, generally, so purity of expression can be maintained, ditto for poems. Scripts are mostly dialogue, back and forth between characters across 120 pages at most, usually, the more concise ping pong effect of the script allows for the same quality control, although it's a bit harder, but Shakespeare would be an example where every line is often perfect. Now compare that to a book. I cant think of any book that left an impression of perfection on my mind but I can think of several films, countless songs and a few poems that have.

Again, I don't think a book is totally pointless yet, just as film making equipment and other technologies become cheaper and easier to use, books as a form of narrative will become outmoded, like any technology. I think Star Trek accurately predicts this, in the future people with author holo-novels, fully immersive narratives as opposed to words written on a page. I was probably too hasty in my judgement on books, but I think that most of them are a chore to read and not that rewarding.

nyarlothothep

desertcircus wrote: »

OP has not read and watched Hitch Hiker's Guide To The Galaxy, so opinion can safely be disregarded.

I read it.

nyarlothothep

jimmycrackcorm wrote: »

Novels aren't any type of technology. Every book version have read is far better than the movie in kind.

They are a technology in the same way a kindle or a film camera are technologies. Before scrolls you had stone tables and before books you had scrolls, books were a massive advancement as an information technology.

jimgoose

I find a good novel gives me the wherewithal to make my own film, one that suits me perfectly, as I become more immersed in it. This beats seven shades of primate ammunition out of the equivalent built-to-budget-and-schedule concoction plopped on to my telescreen by some Segway-riding American twit, or some half-mad German who can't stop churning out celluloid dross because his mother kept him locked in the bathroom until he was 28.

bumper234

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Ok Mr. Monkey. I like Elephants. This could be like a discussion on the novel as a technology among different types of animals like an Aesop fable.

A novel isn't technology the devices used to write/print it and the material used for the printed word is.

wilkie2006

George Martin? Stephen King?

OP, in fairness, you've hardly been reading particularly good writers. I've never read King, but Martin is - whatever about his novels' stories (which I enjoy) - a technically poor author.

Why don't you take a look at people like Graham Greene, George Orwell, Martin Amis or Albert Camus? These are the ones who can blow a film out of the water.

Ice Storm

The Blind Assassin is one book that comes to mind that would not work or have the same impact as a film.

Toby Take a Bow

nyarlothothep wrote: »

I actually can't think of a novel that I've thought, all the way through this the quality was gold. The format doesn't allow it. TV actually encounters a similar problem though perhaps to a lesser extent. A novel is, on average, 200-400 pages, written by one dude or chick, quality control becomes an impossible task. In a song, you've got a much more limited time span, generally, so purity of expression can be maintained, ditto for poems.

It sounds like you aren't the biggest fan of novels, and that's grand. Everyone and their opinion and all that. But appreciation of art forms will - for the most part - be subjective.

I would say that comparing novels and films is a little ... pointless. They are completely different methods of telling a story. Even if that story is the same (like a film version of a book or vice versa) due to the 'restrictions' on both methods, the story told will be in some way a different story.

To use the Game of Thrones example again: visually the tv series looks great, but reading the books allows you to gain a far greater understanding of the complexity of the relations and the thinking of the characters with regards to their actions.

It sounds like you enjoy a story being told in a more visual way while some of us enjoy it being told in words.

nyarlothothep

bumper234 wrote: »

A novel isn't technology the devices used to write/print it and the material used for the printed word is.

A novel stores information, a computer stores information yet one is a technology and the other is not?

Toby Take a Bow

nyarlothothep wrote: »

A novel stores information, a computer stores information yet one is a technology and the other is not?

No, the paper stores the information, much like a computer. So it's the paper that's the technology.

nyarlothothep

wilkie2006 wrote: »

George Martin? Stephen King?

OP, in fairness, you've hardly been reading particularly good writers. I've never read King, but Martin is - whatever about his novels' stories (which I enjoy) - a technically poor author.

Why don't you take a look at people like Graham Greene, George Orwell, Martin Amis or Albert Camus? These are the ones who can blow a film out of the water.

Thanks for reminding me, one of the few novels I've read that was close to perfection was 1984, it's a masterpiece. Another novel that I read that was quite good was A Scanner Darkly though I'm not much of a fan of that kind of trendy English.

desertcircus

Even fairly straightforward books can incorporate aspects it's more or less impossible to transfer to film. Take The Hunger Games: it's single-perspective, moves through time in a linear and consistent fashion, and is written for a teenage audience. Yet there's a marked difference between the Katniss of the book and the Katniss of the film; in the book, she's relentlessly focused on survival for as long as possible, by any means possible, and one of the few times she allows herself any dreaming of a possible future, Gale features heavily. Peeta's almost a tool for escaping the Games more than a serious love interest, and she assumes the worst of everyone around her - that's a consequence of the dehumanising effect the Capitol's policies have on the people of the districts. Survival is the best and only goal; all else is a luxury one can ill afford. In the film, Gale barely features, and Katniss' interactions with Peeta, stripped of her internal conflict and survivalist focus, become a fairly straightforward story about falling for someone. In that same process, the sheer brutalism of the Capitol is lessened, because we can't see what it's done to the way Katniss thinks. And that's a near-flawless adaptation of a fairly simple book suited uncannily well to conversion to the screen. If you venture further away, you start finding abortions like I, Robot.

nyarlothothep

Toby Take a Bow wrote: »

No, the paper stores the information, much like a computer. So it's the paper that's the technology.

Ah yes, but the binding allows the user to access the different pages instantaneously so the sum total, namely the codex, is a technology.

stoneill

You are mixing up technology with art.

The content of a book is unique to each reader.
A film is just one film makers view.

nyarlothothep

stoneill wrote: »

You are mixing up technology with art.

The content of a book is unique to each reader.
A film is just one film makers view.

Technology and art have been intertwined since their inception. Cavemen used sticks with paint to make cave paintings. As technology advanced those sticks or whatever they used became paint brushes, now we use CG programs to create art. The technological medium informs the art.

stoneill

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Technology and art have been intertwined since their inception. Cavemen used sticks with paint to make cave paintings. As technology advanced those sticks or whatever they used became paint brushes, now we use CG programs to create art. The technological medium informs the art.

Technology does not create art - a paint brush, a bound copy of paper leaves, a typewriter, a computer - only tools to use to create art.

Books will remain - either in a traditional form or as a e-readers, however, people like to read.

nyarlothothep

stoneill wrote: »

Technology does not create art - a paint brush, a bound copy of paper leaves, a typewriter, a computer - only tools to use to create art.

Books will remain - either in a traditional form or as a e-readers, however, people like to read.

In a way it does, it opens up and limits possibilities for art, it allows the artist to envision certain ideas and not to consider others. It also informs the style of the art, creation is a fundamental component of artistic expression, therefore the tools you use to express your vision will have a significant bearing on the vision itself. The electric guitar and the discovery of pleasing distortion are major elements in rock music. CG animation, the tool used to create it sets it apart from 2D animation at the end receiver level, of course traditional animation principles are transferable but regardless you have a completely new genre of art as a consequence of technology. Books will be outmoded one day. Direct visual/sensory experience will supersede it.

mathepac

I read the OP and spent a bit of time composing my response so I may remake points made in posts I haven't seen or maybe disagree with them, but here goes.

The technology in a a book (novel, poetry anthology, school-book, encyclopaedia) stage-play, screen play, radio or TV broadcast is identical. It is the written word, These words may eventually be spoken using language, but writing is the technology used to represent language. Paper, vellum, plastic OH transparencies, disk-drives, USB sticks, etc are simply examples of the media used to store words pending their translation back into language by being read and/or spoken.

So what is a novel now that we can clearly see that in and of itself it is not a technology? A novel is a type of fiction, the product of a writer's creativity. Although it may be inspired by historical events, it is neither an historical treatise nor a simple regurgitation of facts.

If the novel is a type of fiction, what is fiction? I see it as being the art or craft of contriving, through words, representations of human life, that instruct or amuse us or both.

When any piece of written fiction is long enough to make an entire book, then it can be said to have achieved "novel hood". A brief novel may be termed a novella or even a novelette (M&B anyone?). A novel that bursts the banks of a single volume may be termed a "roman fleuve" or river novel.

Novels have many other attributes like plot, characterisation, scope, narrative method (POV) and the novel uniquely amongst art-forms IMHO allows for a full development and exposure of these. Long live the novel and here's to the development of more communications media and methods to inform and amuse "readers" - audiobooks, ebooks, etc.

Toby Take a Bow

nyarlothothep wrote: »

Ah yes, but the binding allows the user to access the different pages instantaneously so the sum total, namely the codex, is a technology.

I get what you're saying regarding letters (and language) as technology. I was more replying to your initial analogy regarding the computer and 'novel' as technology.

Pretzill

No they're not obsolete but it is a personal taste whether you prefer the written word over the visual or vice versa. They are two completely different mediums so comparisons don't work.

The spoken word was here first. And in a way movies are an extension of that with visual clues where you don't in most cases, particularly nowadays, have to engage the mind too much. I love movies but I like nothing as much as curling up with a good book and creating all the pictures in my mind. It's more personal.

longhalloween

Can't beat a good audio book.